Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 58 (9174 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: Neptune7
Post Volume: Total: 917,602 Year: 4,859/9,624 Month: 207/427 Week: 17/103 Day: 6/11 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   New theory about evolution between creationism and evolution.
zi ko
Member (Idle past 3701 days)
Posts: 578
Joined: 01-18-2011


Message 421 of 433 (659191)
04-13-2012 10:21 AM
Reply to: Message 419 by Taq
04-12-2012 12:00 PM


Re: Do random mutations have predictive value?
Evidence please.
Where is the evidence for randon mutations in metazoa?
All life is exposed to mutagens, random mistakes by polymerases, indels, recombination events, and exogenous insertion of repetitive elements (e.g. transposons). We can see this in the divergence of non-coding DNA between species. The process of mutation in ALL life produces deleterious, neutral, and beneficial effects.
As it happens as well with guided mutations through environmental information. You keep forgetting that guided mutations producedeleterious anetral mutations as well.
Also, I have yet see evidence of any god or a plan set by this unevidenced god. Why would I include something for which there is no evidence?
You cant avoid to see the eternal flow of informatio from environment to organism. But you prefer to ignore its significance to evolution.
So says the person who thinks, without evidence, that there is a supernatural plan at work in evolution. You are projecting.
It could be, if you prefer, just a flow of information. You are negative in advance.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 419 by Taq, posted 04-12-2012 12:00 PM Taq has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 10158
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 4.7


Message 422 of 433 (659204)
04-13-2012 12:18 PM
Reply to: Message 420 by zi ko
04-13-2012 9:45 AM


Re: Do random mutations have predictive value?
If i am right, i don't think you ever mention any study in metazoa to prove random mutations.
Here is one done in humans:
quote:
Direct estimates of human per nucleotide mutation rates at 20 loci causing Mendelian diseases.
Kondrashov AS.
SourceNational Center for Biotechnology Information, NIH, Bethesda, Maryland 20892, USA. Kondrashov@ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
Abstract
I estimate per nucleotide rates of spontaneous mutations of different kinds in humans directly from the data on per locus mutation rates and on sequences of de novo nonsense nucleotide substitutions, deletions, insertions, and complex events at eight loci causing autosomal dominant diseases and 12 loci causing X-linked diseases. The results are in good agreement with indirect estimates, obtained by comparison of orthologous human and chimpanzee pseudogenes. The average direct estimate of the combined rate of all mutations is 1.8x10(-8) per nucleotide per generation, and the coefficient of variation of this rate across the 20 loci is 0.53. Single nucleotide substitutions are approximately 25 times more common than all other mutations, deletions are approximately three times more common than insertions, complex mutations are very rare, and CpG context increases substitution rates by an order of magnitude. There is only a moderate tendency for loci with high per locus mutation rates to also have higher per nucleotide substitution rates, and per nucleotide rates of deletions and insertions are statistically independent on the per locus mutation rate. Rates of different kinds of mutations are strongly correlated across loci. Mutational hot spots with per nucleotide rates above 5x10(-7) make only a minor contribution to human mutation. In the next decade, direct measurements will produce a rather precise, quantitative description of human spontaneous mutation at the DNA level.
Direct estimates of human per nucleotide mutation rates at 20 loci causing Mendelian diseases - PubMed
This study calculated the human mutation rate by measuring the occurence of deleterious mutations in a well defined population. They compared their results to mutation rate needed to produce the divergence seen in chimp and human pseudogenes (i.e. neutral mutations). If mutations are random with respect to fitness in humans then the two values should be close, and they are.
On top of this, there is no known system by which metazoans can specifically mutate their DNA in response to a specific stimuli. All of the sources of mutation that we know of are random with respect to fitness. Polymerases are incapable of determining which mutations will affect fitness. Repair mechanisms are incapable of determining the same. Environmental mutagens can not tell which mutations will increase or decrease fitness. You claim that there are such systems, but you fail to even describe them, much less evidence them. Is it any wonder why scientists conclude that mutations are random? They are following the evidence, and the evidence clearly indicates random mutations with respect to fitness.
Existence even of tiny signal of directed mutations, as you say, it shows that there is , never mind how rare it is, the mechanism to suceed it. So why you so insistantly used to ask me to present that mechanism?
Why do you insist that it exists when you have no evidence that it exists?
I suggest neural system to bridge this division.
We need evidence, not suggestions. Anyone can play make-believe. Anyone can make stuff up. What we are interested in is what is real. Surely you know this?
If you remain unable to bring the needed evidence, i insist there is fiddling with.
Says the person unwilling to present evidence to back their claims.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 420 by zi ko, posted 04-13-2012 9:45 AM zi ko has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 423 by zi ko, posted 04-13-2012 8:04 PM Taq has replied

  
zi ko
Member (Idle past 3701 days)
Posts: 578
Joined: 01-18-2011


Message 423 of 433 (659256)
04-13-2012 8:04 PM
Reply to: Message 422 by Taq
04-13-2012 12:18 PM


Re: Do random mutations have predictive value?
So this famed evidence about random mutations in metazoa ends up to an indirect estimation by a scientist, who in 2002, hopes that other scientists, during next decade (which already had ended), would rather make a direct measurement, evidently necessary for any conclusion!!!!
Edited by zi ko, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 422 by Taq, posted 04-13-2012 12:18 PM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 424 by Panda, posted 04-14-2012 8:20 AM zi ko has replied
 Message 429 by Taq, posted 04-16-2012 12:40 PM zi ko has not replied

  
Panda
Member (Idle past 3794 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


(1)
Message 424 of 433 (659286)
04-14-2012 8:20 AM
Reply to: Message 423 by zi ko
04-13-2012 8:04 PM


Re: Do random mutations have predictive value?
Taq provided 'some' evidence.
You provided 'no' evidence.
If this was a competition then not only would Taq be winning, but you would not even have started playing yet.
You can argue all you want about how much weight to give Taq's evidence, but it will always be infinitely weightier than the zero evidence you have supplied.

Tradition and heritage are all dead people's baggage. Stop carrying it!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 423 by zi ko, posted 04-13-2012 8:04 PM zi ko has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 425 by zi ko, posted 04-15-2012 12:39 AM Panda has replied

  
zi ko
Member (Idle past 3701 days)
Posts: 578
Joined: 01-18-2011


Message 425 of 433 (659328)
04-15-2012 12:39 AM
Reply to: Message 424 by Panda
04-14-2012 8:20 AM


Re: Do random mutations have predictive value?
Taq provided 'some' evidence.
You provided 'no' evidence.
This discussion is not a competition between me and Taq or another member of this forum. It is about fiddling with the whole evolution community of this forum (only?) in order to presend a feeble theory (e.g random mutations role in evolution) as a fact, with unwarranted claims.
Edited by zi ko, : No reason given.
Edited by zi ko, : No reason given.

Taq provided 'some' evidence.
You provided 'no' evidence.
So this famed evidence about random mutations in metazoa ends up to an indirect estimation by a scientist, who in 2002, hopes that other scientists, during next decade (which already had ended), would rather make a direct measurement, evidently necessary for any conclusion!!!!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 424 by Panda, posted 04-14-2012 8:20 AM Panda has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 426 by Panda, posted 04-15-2012 6:09 AM zi ko has replied
 Message 430 by Taq, posted 04-16-2012 12:42 PM zi ko has not replied

  
Panda
Member (Idle past 3794 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


Message 426 of 433 (659331)
04-15-2012 6:09 AM
Reply to: Message 425 by zi ko
04-15-2012 12:39 AM


Re: Do random mutations have predictive value?
zi ko writes:
This discussion is not a competition between me and Taq or another member of this forum.
But if it was, then Taq would be winning. That is how the conjunction 'if' works.
zi ko writes:
It is about fiddling with the whole evolution community of this forum (only?) in order to presend a feeble theory (e.g random mutations role in evolution) as a fact, with unwarranted claims.
The only person making unwarranted and unevidenced claims is you.
You have provided no evidence.
If you think that makes your 'theory' feeble, then I think we are all in agreement.
Edited by Panda, : No reason given.

Tradition and heritage are all dead people's baggage. Stop carrying it!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 425 by zi ko, posted 04-15-2012 12:39 AM zi ko has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 427 by zi ko, posted 04-16-2012 6:53 AM Panda has replied

  
zi ko
Member (Idle past 3701 days)
Posts: 578
Joined: 01-18-2011


Message 427 of 433 (659470)
04-16-2012 6:53 AM
Reply to: Message 426 by Panda
04-15-2012 6:09 AM


Re: Do random mutations have predictive value?
The only person making unwarranted and unevidenced claims is you.
You have provided no evidence
I have stated it from the very begining of this thread that i couldn't provide any evidence. But your admission that Taq had provided 'some' evidence was a very big help to my position that Modern Synthesis theory was an nonproved theory or rather a hypothesis as regards the random mutations part of it. Isn't it a big joke?

Taq provided 'some' evidence.
You provided 'no' evidence.
So this famed evidence about random mutations in metazoa ends up to an indirect estimation by a scientist, who in 2002, hopes that other scientists, during next decade (which already had ended), would rather make a direct measurement, evidently necessary for any conclusion!!!!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 426 by Panda, posted 04-15-2012 6:09 AM Panda has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 428 by Panda, posted 04-16-2012 10:52 AM zi ko has not replied

  
Panda
Member (Idle past 3794 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


Message 428 of 433 (659502)
04-16-2012 10:52 AM
Reply to: Message 427 by zi ko
04-16-2012 6:53 AM


Re: Do random mutations have predictive value?
zi ko writes:
I have stated it from the very begining of this thread that i couldn't provide any evidence.
And, as stated from the beginning of this thread, there is evidence of random mutations.
At that point, you should have just stopped posting.
zi ko writes:
Isn't it a big joke?
Your theory is a big joke?
Yes - it would appear so.

Tradition and heritage are all dead people's baggage. Stop carrying it!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 427 by zi ko, posted 04-16-2012 6:53 AM zi ko has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 10158
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 4.7


Message 429 of 433 (659517)
04-16-2012 12:40 PM
Reply to: Message 423 by zi ko
04-13-2012 8:04 PM


Re: Do random mutations have predictive value?
So this famed evidence about random mutations in metazoa ends up to an indirect estimation by a scientist, who in 2002, hopes that other scientists, during next decade (which already had ended), would rather make a direct measurement, evidently necessary for any conclusion!!!!
The indirect measurement is more than enough to test the hypothesis.
You claim that mutations are guided in metazoans. Where are your direct measurements?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 423 by zi ko, posted 04-13-2012 8:04 PM zi ko has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 10158
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 4.7


Message 430 of 433 (659519)
04-16-2012 12:42 PM
Reply to: Message 425 by zi ko
04-15-2012 12:39 AM


Re: Do random mutations have predictive value?
It is about fiddling with the whole evolution community of this forum (only?) in order to presend a feeble theory (e.g random mutations role in evolution) as a fact, with unwarranted claims.
I am presenting random mutations as a conclusion drawn from evidence. I have given you this evidence.
You claim mutations are guided. You have offered zero evidence.
It appears that your attempts to "fiddle with" the scientific community is rather feeble, and incompetent at that.
Please present evidence for your claims or withdraw the claims. It is as simple as that.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 425 by zi ko, posted 04-15-2012 12:39 AM zi ko has not replied

  
zi ko
Member (Idle past 3701 days)
Posts: 578
Joined: 01-18-2011


Message 431 of 433 (660271)
04-23-2012 8:57 AM


Re: Are there ONLY RANDOM MUTATIONS?
'If that much-spoken 'evidence" of followers of random mutations is this 'some evidence' of Panda, then there is a serious matter of credibility in this forum.

  
Larni
Member
Posts: 4000
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 432 of 433 (660274)
04-23-2012 11:01 AM


In summarion
Once again zi ko provides no evidence for the same old theory in yet another thread.

The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer.
-Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53
The explain to them any scientific investigation that explains the existence of things qualifies as science and as an explanation
-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 286
Does a query (thats a question Stile) that uses this physical reality, to look for an answer to its existence and properties become theoretical, considering its deductive conclusions are based against objective verifiable realities.
-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 134

  
zi ko
Member (Idle past 3701 days)
Posts: 578
Joined: 01-18-2011


Message 433 of 433 (662596)
05-17-2012 11:50 AM


SUMMATION.
Firstly I would like to thank all, without any exception, participants of the thread.
As far as it concerns my most important and provocative new ideas, I can say:
NEURAL INVOLVEMENT AS A CAUSATIVE FACTOR IN EVOLUTION.
It i s still far from being proved. But the trend of expanding scientific work on neural system, I hope, will give at least some causative role of neural system on evolution process. As the importance of information flow from environment, ending to genome, is more and more gaining scientific recognition, the role of neural system is going to be more accepted.
EMPATHY AS ESSENSIAL MECHANISM OF INFORMATION TRANSFER RELATIVE TO EVOLUTION is going to be even more difficult.
THERE ARE BOTH TYPES OF MUTATIONS RANDOM AND DIRECTED.
Here I felt being astonished. All over these months of conversation I was bombarded by big mouth accusations for not presenting evidence. And it ended that fanatic advocates of hard scientific evidence, presented without any shame, as the only evidence of randomness in mutation for metazoa, the indirect measurements of a researcher at 2002, who hopes on next decade ( we are already in 2012) other scientists would make the direct measurements !! And we talk about the main pillar of classic Darwinism and the Modern Theory as well. At least Taq talks about the hypothesis of randomness. So Modern Theory is not a Theory, but simply ahypothesis!!!!
Maybe these truths were the reason for Percy to treat me so unfairly!!!

'If that much-spoken 'evidence" of followers of random mutations is this 'some evidence' of Panda, then there is a serious matter of credibility in this forum.

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024